It is beyond my understanding how this 300 year-old piece of bigotry was ‘slipped’ into our constitution. The late Pierre Trudeau must have been 'asleep at the switch' at that time. No doubt, he was intoxicated at the prospect of the ‘repatriation of the constitution' and the visit to Canada of the Queen to sign it!

A constitution should be a noble document. It should lay out the framework to instil love of country, freedom, tolerance and justice for all with guidelines for the day to day management of its business.

A constitution should not discriminate on the basis of colour, race or one’s religion or lack of religion. The highest office in the land should not be hereditary but open to any citizen who qualifies to be elected to that office. And the separation of Church and State should ensure that all citizens participate equally in its democracy.

In Canada, religion and politics are interwoven in the foundations of our colonial past. Unfortunately, our country still contains many relics of the turmoil caused by sectarian strife in Europe over the last four hundred years. Most European countries have now adopted democratic systems, which are more inclusive, non-discriminatory and devoid of religious intolerance. But the Act of Settlement 1701 is an exception. It was drafted at a time when people were divided along religious lines. It has remained untouched for the past three hundred years - a kind of lingering medieval hangover. It is a glaring example and one reason for the ongoing bigotry and bitter religious conflicts, which still afflicts many communities in the British Isles.

The Act of Settlement of 1701 clearly establishes who is eligible to be monarch or head of state of England (Britain) and her possessions and countries under that monarch. It singles out any one of the Catholic (Popish) religion as unfit to be monarch or even married to the monarch. It is a rather strange, humiliating piece of bigotry from a bygone era. Yet our federal political leaders avoid any comment, which would lead to amending the Act. Most often, when I mention that the Act of Settlement should be amended, I am sheepishly told - 'let sleeping dogs lie'.

I have written to Prime Minister Jean Chretien on three occasions over the past three years. I have also written to Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney in the past. But the result was always the same. I got the 'run around' - they all ducked the issue.

I wrote to Mr. Chretien on December 31 1999. I thought that the beginning of the third millennium could lead to some house cleaning and perhaps this odious, yet legal, discrimination could be dumped in the trash heap of history. I thought he would have some fundamental feelings about democracy as we stepped, not only into a new century, but into a new millennium. And, since 2001 was the 300^th anniversary of the Act of Settlement, it would also be a small but significant contribution for him to begin the eradication of institutionalised religious intolerance. But, alas, I had no such luck! We are still stuck in 1701!

My last letter prompted the following rely from Mr Chretien’s office - "as the matter you have raised is not within the jurisdiction of the federal government, this office is unable to be of assistance".

I have often wondered how such blatant discrimination, which undermines basic human rights, can still be enshrined in law, in Britain and applied also in Canada. It speaks volumnes about the murky foundations of our country and our inability to cope with the very fundamentals of democracy. And it questions our maturity as a nation and how we can exist with such imported intolerance as part of the fabric of nationhood.

Although I am not a monarchist, but if Canada wishes to retain the British monarch as head of Canada, it is imperative that the Canadian government takes steps to remove the Act of Settlement 1701 from our constitution.

Tony Blair and his colleagues have said that the existence of such legal discrimination troubles them very much (Attached). You might wish to look at the discussions on the Act in Britain in the last few years. The Guardian Newspaper is presently taking court action through the European Union based on the Human Rights Act 1998. The attached article in the Guardian (May 31, 2002) gives a little insight into the attempts being made, in Britain, to deal with discrimination section of the Act. I notice that Canada has been listed with Jamaica and St Lucia as countries known to look at changes to the Act. I would like to know what action Canada has taken.

May I suggest that your department support my court action rather than oppose it. You should become part of the solution rather than an obstacle. Eventually, the Act will be amended or scrapped entirely to reflect the changes that have taken place over the past three hundred years. Your action could send a clear message that we are emerging as a true democracy. And it would be refreshing to have this type of leadership from Ottawa.

Trying to have my court action thrown out on arguments of ‘justiceiability’ and ‘standing’ is a mean spirited way of technically avoiding the substance of the action - the discrimination enshrined in the Act of Settlement.

My twenty-six years as a member of Toronto City Council has shown me that it takes time to abandon old or introduce new legislation. Sometimes it takes a little courage to change with the times and do what is right. But persistence wins out in the long run.

On a broader topic, I notice that the Queen is to visit Canada in early October. The federal government has second thoughts about her opening parliament as it may spark some anti monarchy sentiment in Quebec. That says it all - Canada is weak and immature. It is about time that we grew up!

As one who is desperately trying to be Canadian, I would have a much deeper appreciation of Canada if all the negative colonial trappings were thrown overboard. As an immigrant of neither English or French extraction I look on the post World War 11 immigrant stock as the glue which will bind our country together. It means having our own head of state in a free and independent Canada.

Quebec should be a willing participant in a new Canada if its culture, language and laws were part of that system. Canada can only exist with Quebec as an integral partner. The French fact makes Canada unique and justifies our existence as a country. As it now stands the monarchy is a major divisive force in the unity of Canada. And a tattered monarchy, residing in Britain, has few redeeming features for Canadians in general.

It sounds rather strange that our 'off shore head of state' will visit us in October!

Yours faithfully

Tony O'Donohue